A very interesting article on CNSNews, titled: Environmentalists Accused of Promoting 'Eco-Imperialism'.
The gist of the article is that the "green" movement around the world is interfering with the economic development of many developing countries. By dictating to developing countries what types of "sustainable development" are acceptable, they are causing undue hardship.
QUOTE |
"The world's poor don't need sustainable development. They need sustained development, so that they can take their rightful places among the Earth's prosperous people," Driessen said. .... The focus only on what environmentalists consider "Earth-friendly development" is causing unnecessary misery and death among the world's poor, according to panelists at the event. "The developing world's residents need a chance to conquer malaria, conquer malnutrition, and they need electricity. Ninety-five percent of the people in sub-Saharan Africa have no access to electricity at all, Driessen said, blaming much of the situation on green groups' opposition to such infrastructure development. "That means they have no modern hospitals, no clinics, no lights, no refrigeration. Food spoils. They have no water sanitation. People die from that. They die from having to breathe the burning cow dung and burning wood fumes and the pollutants and smoke that are a constant fixture in their homes and throughout their villages," he added. |
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 85.4%
I think the answer to that question can be found by looking
at the founders, movers and financers of the green movement;
There are several good books you can read on this subject
and a web search will pull up much.
For example:
QUOTE |
Political satirist H.L. Mencken warned, "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." The environmentalist agenda is more sinister. While the Soviet Union has collapsed, communism is not dead. It has been repackaged under a new name: environmentalism. Communism is about extensive government regulation and control by elites and so is environmentalism. |
QUOTE |
The similarities between the philosophy and programs advocated by the Greens and totalitarian forms of government are numerous. What better way to undermine the economy of this nation than to deny its citizens the benefits of its natural resources? Even access and use of national parks is being increasingly restricted. |
QUOTE |
Standing astride this environmental juggernaut like a colossus is the same group of Insiders who have been playing God with people's lives since before World War I. Thanks to their "internationalism" and "balance of power" schemes, the 20th Century has proved to be the bloodiest in all human history. Yet these so-called "wise men" finance tyranny, replace governments, elect Presidents and Prime Ministers, and, in general, act as the un-elected rulers for a world gone crazy. |
International Level: Junior Politician / Political Participation: 100 10%
As with any group of people, there are the crazies. The environmentalist movement in general is not imperialistic in nature. The idea that people wanting to make the earth a healthier, cleaner place to live some how scares people and gets them on the defensive because its calls them to live more responsibly and be responsible for their environment. I know there are plenty of people that that are way over board and border, if not cross then line to being eco-terrorists. This is not in dispute, nor will I argue that there are people that should be jailed because of their activities in this political area.
However, this is something that every person should be involved in. I don't know why it is still percieved as some group wanting to take over the world when it should be appealing to both republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives. Eco-politics are in the minority but are a percieved threat. With so few people actually sticking up for the whats right environmentally, it can't be imperialistic in nature because they are always in survival mode. The ones that can be viewed as imperialistic are not viewed in good light by the majority of the movement, but the media seems to focus on them. It unfortunate because most people see the crazy ones all the time and not the ones that are just plodding along doing our part to help the environment the right way, not chaining ourselves to trees and blowing up things, just recycling, and trying to pollute less and voting for people who support bills that back that up.
I think that it is the radical environmentalists, such as PETA and Earth First, along with the Sierra Club, that have given them such a bad name. Since these radical groups are virulently anti-business, they directly threaten the livelihoods of countless people. That is not a good way to make friends.
Earth First, along with the eco-terrorist groups, have caused millions of dollars worth of damage, and have directly caused serious injuries, possibly even death, among workers in various places. They have burned facilities, staked trees (causing power saws to explode while cutting the trees), and destroyed vital research.
Yes, everyone should be involved in conservation efforts. But there is a huge difference between conservation and environmentalism. Many environmentalists will tell you that a field mouse is much more important than a human baby. That is why I am firmly set against them.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 85.4%
Nighthawk, I actually agree with you on the environment movement to a degree, especially on the laye 70s Amazon era. It has at times been overstated. But, one thing you have to realise, most environmentalists are not motivated by much more than seeing their environment prosper. They get very little, if no, money out of this.
Yes, there are lunatics, who are there to make a name for themselves. But the majority just care about the future of this earth. Big business generaly doesn't give a s%&*t about the environment. But this will cost us one day. Look at what is happening with the Amazon, it is now at the highest de-forestation levels in history. This is the greatest rainforest in our lives.
International Level: Negotiator / Political Participation: 453 45.3%